Fullerton v. Jamestown Spinning Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fullerton v. Jamestown Spinning Co.

32 A.D.2d 735, 301 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 735 (Fullerton v. Jamestown Spinning Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fullerton v. Jamestown Spinning Co., 32 A.D.2d 735, 301 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with

costs. Memorandum: The trial court charged the jury that if they found that the defendant, 'Spinning Company, was negligent because of a violation either of the Labor Law or the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals notice was not required. This was error. It is not claimed that the railing was defective in construction. Notice that the condition was known to be unsafe, or was discoverable in the exercise of reasonable care was a necessary element to a recovery. (Zinsenheim v. Congregation Beth David, 10 A D 2d 501; Zaulich v. Thompkins Sq. Holding Co., 10 A D 2d 492.) The record, however, establishes as a matter of law that the Spinning Company did have [736]*736notice. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua Trial Term, in negligence action.) Present—'Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with

costs. Memorandum: The trial court charged the jury that if they found that the defendant, 'Spinning Company, was negligent because of a violation either of the Labor Law or the Rules of the Board of Standards and Appeals notice was not required. This was error. It is not claimed that the railing was defective in construction. Notice that the condition was known to be unsafe, or was discoverable in the exercise of reasonable care was a necessary element to a recovery. (Zinsenheim v. Congregation Beth David, 10 A D 2d 501; Zaulich v. Thompkins Sq. Holding Co., 10 A D 2d 492.) The record, however, establishes as a matter of law that the Spinning Company did have [736]*736notice. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua Trial Term, in negligence action.) Present—'Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 735, 301 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullerton-v-jamestown-spinning-co-nyappdiv-1969.